Mot Query

[ynnafymmi]

I have just noticed my MOT expired on Monday.I have a test arranged for next Friday.Do they give you two weeks grace nowadays?I thought you used to get a e-mail telling you when it is about to expire?I never got nothing?Can i still drive my car till Friday?

[netherfield]

There never has been a two week grace on MOT, back when we had more local police walking around, the would often overlook tax disc for a couple of weeks, because it could be in the  post. 

And until the newer system of not getting any remaining car tax  on a used vehicle, the MOT would be at a similar time as the car tax, which you should have got a reminder for, in plenty of time before expiry.

[Bazile]

NJ

If it fails it's recorded on the database  , isn't it ?

So you won't be able to drive it from the date of the failure ?

 

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, "It gives you a month to get any problems fixed."

The car can be driven only if,

your current MOT is still validno ‘dangerous’ problems were listed in the MOT

Otherwise, you’ll need to get it repaired before you can drive.

If you can take your vehicle away, it must still meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times."

It's not as straightforward as the existng MOT takes precedence. 

[THECORBYLOON]

Apologies for that being in an odd layout.

Basically the car has to have had no "dangerous " conditions listed in the latest MOT and meet the minimum standards of roadworthiness at all times for the previous MOT to be valid still.

[Canary42]

////won't be able to drive it from the date of the failure ?////

That's where it becomes a bit of a grey area to me. You have to:-

1. Get  it home from the Testing Station

2. Get it from home to a garage to get it remedied (bear in mind not all Testing Stations are geared up to repair all cars).

Providing the latter is pre-booked then wouldn't both those situations be OK?

[netherfield]

And I should have added you can get a MOT two months before the old one expires, effectively a 14 months test certificate.

[barry1010]

One month before, not two. It gives you time to put things right should it fail

[barry1010]

Canary, you cannot drive the car away if it is deemed dangerous. You either have to get that garage to repair it or get it towed to somewhere else.

[netherfield]

Correct Barry, I think they extended during COVID.

[Arrods]

NJ  I think it is still the case that if the insurer has to meet a third party claim as a result of a vehicle defect that is a contributory factor, they can recover that amount from the insured.  So, in a sense, third party cover is excluded, even though it's not detrimental to the claimant.

Of course, no responsible insurer is going to invoke that option.  However, I am aware of one insurer that does - or at least did.

[New Judge]

“That's where it becomes a bit of a grey area to me. You have to:-

1. Get  it home from the Testing Station

2. Get it from home to a garage to get it remedied (bear in mind not all Testing Stations are geared up to repair all cars).”

There’s nothing grey about it at all. If your previous MoT is still valid and, as Corby explains, you have no “dangerous” faults, you can drive it where you like.

“NJ  I think it is still the case that if the insurer has to meet a third party claim as a result of a vehicle defect that is a contributory factor, they can recover that amount from the insured.”

But we’re not talking about vehicle defects. We’re talking about lack of MoT. That, by itself, cannot invalidate insurance. If it did, every time a driver faced an allegation of no MoT he would also face an allegation of the far more serious matter of driving without insurance and clearly that does not happen.

When imposing conditions Insurers must be able to show that their risk has increased if those conditions are not complied with. If they do not and they try to deny or restrict cover (or attempt to recover their outlay) in the event of a claim  by using those conditions, they will fail.

Even if the vehicle is unroadworthy, they must still show that the incident was most likely caused by the expired MOT, not simply that there was no MoT. They cannot simply say “There was no MoT so you are no covered.”

Here’s a ruling from the Financial Ombudsman, covering precisely this point:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3123029.pdf

The claim that no MoT invalidates insurance is often quoted on solicitors’ websites (which is where I imagine PP’s passage originated) and even by some insurers. I don’t know why they do it because it is simply misleading.

[douglas9401]

"Lack of MoT does not and cannot invalidate Third Party insurance required by law."

Matters not in old Aberdeen as Polis Scotchland still sit behind bushes with quill and parchment to record trangressions on the high road.

ANPR is 'another neep pie Ruaridh?'